Bruce Moon: A few things that need to be said

We must all by now have a pretty good idea that politics and political discussions, however necessary they may be, have a malignant effect on many things which are undoubtedly true and should be accepted as such by all. Nowhere is this more true than in the current and seemingly endless debate on the Treaty of Waitangi: what it meant and its consequences today.

There can be no doubt that the British Government of the day was acting from the highest principles of international law and practice and goodwill in despatching Captain Hobson to New Zealand in 1839 with the express objective of establishing British sovereignty over New Zealand with the free consent of the native population.

Lord Normanby's 4200-word written instructions given to Hobson on the 14th of August 1839 in England will undoubtedly have been studied with much care by him on his passage to Sydney by HMS “Druid” en route to New Zealand. This document is easily obtained on the Internet and should be studied with care by all persons professing to have an informed interest in the Treaty of Waitangi and other related developments.

There had been other significant events in New Zealand in preceding years.  Almost the whole country was coming to the end of decades of lethal combat amongst the Maori tribes themselves; the so-called “Musket Wars”.   As Paul Moon noted, this had caused “almost unbearable anxiety experienced by all Maori communities” (“This Horrid Practice”,  p.151. ISBN 9780143006718,”Penguin”, 2008). Nearly a third of the population had been killed, this being particularly lethal amongst those of breeding age (and a consequent drop in the Maori population in the subsequent colonial decades, as recorded by John Robinson; “When two cultures meet, p.66, ISBN1872970311).  A common, if understandable, misconception in colonial society of the times was that Maoris were a “dying race”, a situation remedied in large part by extensive interbreeding with the “wicked white colonials” themselves, to the extent that probably all people who describe themselves as Maoris today do have white colonial ancestors, in many cases the considerable majority!  

So come off it, you jokers, who carry on about the agonies suffered by your Maori ancestors from colonization.  If it were not for your white forebears, you wouldn’t be here at all!  By contrast, Waikato tribes could recall the merciless depredations they suffered in pre-colonial times at the hands of musket-wielding Ngapuhi (Robinson, “Unrestrained Slaughter”, ISBN978187297068, 2020, pp55ff) and Kati Mamoe (if there are any left) at the hands of Kai (1) Tahu. (though in Timaru in 1988 I did meet one woman who said she was Kati Mamoe). At Goat Island (Mapoutahi), it is said that Kai Tahu slaughtered Kati Mamoe to the last inhabitant, while at Dusky Sound they left a few of their bones in the ashes after a cannibal feast. (A.C.Begg and N.C.Begg, “Dusky Bay”, 1966, pp113ff.)   One young woman remarkably survived for many years until they went and killed her off too!

And the French?  

It would seem that the French were rather slow to learn from the discoveries, principally of Cook, that fresh and suitably preserved vegetables, especially sauerkraut, in the diet of sailors were the secret of protecting their health from the dreads of scurvy and other dietary deficient diseases.  Thus was the state of the two vessels of Frenchman Marion du Fresne which limped into the Bay of Islands in April 1772.   He proceeded to set up a hospital for sick crewmen and did his utmost to establish friendly relations with the local tribe, Ngati Pou.  In due course, Marion set off to enjoy his favourite pastime of fishing.  However, in doing so, Marion unwittingly broke a local tapu and his fate was sealed.  All but one of his party who escaped by swimming ashore. were summarily killed and eaten by the tribesmen, one of whom bedecked himself with Marion’s uniform jacket.   After further skirmishing, a large body of Maori warriors proceeded to attack the Frenchmen’s hospital. Of course the French defended themselves valiantly with firearms, killing a large number of chiefs who wore a distinct headdress, and saving their hospital.  It was this incident which led to Maoris developing a mortal fear of the French which soon became widespread.  For the full story, see “The Great Divide” by Ian Wishart, ISBN97809876573-6-7, 2012.

This fear endured - thirteen powerful Ngapuhi chiefs writing on 16 November 1831 to King William of Britain, saying “we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands.” So, a variety of developments occurred in the succeeding decade.  James Busby was sent to the Bay of Islands but with no ability to back up his authority he was soon dubbed by observant Maoris as  “the man o’ war without guns”, as every schoolboy knew in my far off day!

Well, events moved on.  These included a well-meaning but futile attempt, principally by Busby and missionary Henry Williams, to get some sort of order out of chaos in Maoridom, concocting in 1835 a so-called “Declaration of Independence:  He Whakaputanga” by “A Confederation of United Tribes”. Michael King, was scathing about this effort (“The Penguin History”; ISBN0-14-301887-1, p.155), saying it “had no constitutional status [and] also had no reality”.   King was confirming the earlier words of E Jerningham Wakefield(2)  that the so-called “confederation” was “a mockery” which never met nor transacted any business and soon war broke out amongst its tribes and senior chief Titore was killed.  All that doesn’t stop some latter-day part-Maoris lauding it to the hilt!!

Getting nearer to a formal British presence

In 1837, Captain William Hobson, RN, commanding HMS “Rattlesnake” was sent to New Zealand to assess and report on the situation.  Hobson recommended the establishment of a set of “factories” such had been developed in India in order to establish British presence.

Paul Moon, singing a somewhat different tune in “Hobson, Governor of New Zealand 1840-1842”, ISBN 0-908997-5425, 1998, remarks “the meagre schooling Hobson received might have suggested that he was not the most suitable person to be devising recommendations on the future of this part of the British Empire.” (page 19)(3).   Be that as it may, it was Hobson who was selected by Lord Normanby of the Colonial Office to proceed to New Zealand to establish with the Maori chiefs the conditions for the establishment of a British colony in New Zealand. The 4200-word brief that Hobson received from Normanby was actually written initially by James Stephen, his Permanent Under Secretary.  Note that it is easily “googled” on the internet and any person with pretensions of knowledge to the subsequent Treaty of Waitangi should, indeed must, become conversant with its contents.  Paul Moon does indeed quote from this document (Bay of Plenty Times, 18/9/24): “acknowledging New Zealand as ‘a sovereign and independent state’” - but omitting Normanby’s further words: “so far at least as it is possible to make that acknowledgement in favour of a people composed of numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act, or even to deliberate, in concert.”  Readers may make up their own minds up about the significance of my namesake’s very selective quotation!

Well, on Christmas Eve 1839 Hobson duly arrived in Sydney where Governor Gipps proceeded to provide him with support staff “selected for their known incompetency”(4)  and of whose services he wished to dispose.  One of these was JS Freeman, a product of Eton and Oxford and, to put it bluntly, a snob who was to be Hobson’s private secretary.  So equipped, Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands on 29th January 1840.  He contacted the Paihia mission station immediately and by next day, mission printer, William Colenso had produced two important documents for him.  The first proclaimed Hobson “to be Lieutenant-Governor in and over any Territory which is or may be acquired in Sovereignty by Her Majesty ... .”  The second, concerning land stated in part: “Her Majesty ... does not deem it expedient to recognise as valid any Titles to Land in New Zealand which are not derived from or confirmed by Her Majesty”.  Nothing could be fairer than that.

And the Land??

Much – too much – has been written about the dispossession of Maori land by ruthless white men.  NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!   In fact, Maori chiefs had been almost falling over themselves in their haste to exchange European consumer goods for land they did not need with their hunter-gather lifestyle becoming obsolete with the development of European farming methods(5).   In fact no less than 179 South Island sales had been registered in Sydney by 1840 with reserves set aside for the former Maori owners.  In Taranaki, multiple sales of the same land were frequent, in one case, five times over!(6) 

Now land was indeed confiscated from defeated rebel tribes following the various rebellions in the North Island, this being a well-recognized Maori practice, and some was actually returned to former rebels to provide adequately for their livelihoods.  In fact 90% of the land was freely sold by Maori tribal owners, about 4.5% confiscated and the remainder left in their hands.  (Mike Butler, “Tribes treaty MONEY power”, 2014, ISBN187290389.These figures do not include normal land purchases since in the ordinary course of business.

Indeed the bleating about land loss seems to have intensified since one Sacha McMeeking, then a member of the Council of the University of Canterbury, claimed(7)  with reference to settlement of Ngai Tahu claims “the decision was to settle cheaply – accepting $170 million when even treasury value of dispossessed lands lay between $12 and $15 billion”.  Note well that in 1840 nearly all her “dispossessed lands” were an uninhabited wilderness, not remotely like its condition today.  A1996 study of Ngai Tahu claims by Alan Everton(8)  concluded that they were fraudulent.  Why does the Government today not pursue an investigation of this activity perpetrated under the aegis of the Waitangi Tribunal upon the taxpayers of New Zealand?

And the Treaty itself?

I cannot imagine that anywhere else in the world but New Zealand, such a short, succinct and straightforward document as the Treaty of Waitangi should be as manipulated and misrepresented, nearly 200 years after being written, as that rat-eaten specimen!,

It was translated overnight on 4-5 February 1840 into the Ngapuhi dialect of Maori from Hobson’s English text written the previous day, by Henry Williams and his son Edward, 17-year residents in New Zealand and both competent in that language.  Both texts were read out to the assembly at Waitangi the following day, the English by Hobson and the Maori by Henry Williams and nobody said their meanings were different(9).   Since Article Third was inapplicable to existing British subjects and not intended to apply to those of other nationalities, one word, “maori”, was indeed added to it by the Williams,  compelling evidence that Hobson’s English text had been written previously and indeed correctly dated 4th February.(10)  

The history of Hobson’s English text is full of irony.  A virtually verbatim copy was sent to the United States Secretary of State later in February by Clendon, in whose house it had been written, in his capacity as United States Consul.  It was subsequently lent to Commodore Charles Wilkes, visiting commander of the USS Vincennes who wished to “enquire into the state of these islands.” Wilkes, or his writer, copied it to the extent of including Busby’s spelling mistake “sovreignty” while adding a few of his own. This was included in Wilkes’ despatch No.64 to the US Authorities.(11) 

In the stressed state of affairs in New Zealand following Hobson severe stroke on 1st March, his final English text came into the possession of Henry Littlewood, Clendon’s solicitor.   It reposed in the hands of the Littlewood family until found by Beryl Needham among the effects of her late mother, Ethel Littlewood, in March 1989.

Authorities in this country have largely ignored or seemingly done all they can to discredit this pivotal document, Margaret Wilson, then Associate Minister of Justice, writing on 27th September 2004 with the absurd excuse that it was not signed.(12)  She goes on to extol the validity of the rejected copy of Freeman’s own ideas in English of what the treaty should say, used in an exigency at Waikato Heads by missionary Maunsell to gather chiefs’ signatures when the official copy in their own language intended to be used had not arrived.  In the 1975 “Treaty of Waitangi Act” this deeply flawed document was legislated to be “the Treaty in English”.

Thus have New Zealanders (13)  been hoodwinked, misled and deceived at many crucial moments in their nation’s history!

THE CRUCIAL MESSAGE

It is absolutely critical that the true facts of our nation’s constitutional history be straightened out and accepted before any effort in made to establish second order derived hypotheses about what may be the “Principles of the Treaty”. (14)   Anything else would only lead us more deeply into the mire.

Bruce Moon is a retired computer pioneer who wrote "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi Story".

Copyright ©  

Footnotes

1. South of the Rakitata River, with rare exceptions, “k” replaces the “ng” of the north. Thus: ‘Waitaki’,’Waitangi’.

2.  “Adventure in New Zealand from 1839 to 1844, London,1845, Vol 1, p.11

3. Holding a commission as an instructor officer in the RNZNVR (now retired) I can testify from my own experience that naval education at sea was both rigorous and extensive, perhaps more so in pre-Internet days than today!

4. T.L.Buick, “The Treaty of Waitangi”, 1914,p.94

5.  J.Jackson,”Mistaken Maori Land Claims”, Book Seven, Treaty Series, Vol.2.,2007

6. B.Wells. “The History of Taranaki”, Edmondson and Avery, 1878.

7. “The Press”, p. C5, 2nd  July 2011

8. Free Radical 26-8 August-December 1996

9. Proceedings were carefully minuted by Colenso and checked by Busby at the time though not published until 1890

10. As pointed out by Martin Doutré

11. Full details may be found in Doutré, “The Littlewood Treaty Found”, ISBN 0-473-10140-8, 2005, shunned by authorities in this country..

12. Ibid, p.127

13. With possibly the said former minister amongst them!

14. Several excellent and informative books exist on topics covered here. The author may be contacted for details.